Quote:if that were the case, they could refer to is as AD

Was it common to write dates out in that format in the 1780s?

(October 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:if that were the case, they could refer to is as AD

Was it common to write dates out in that format in the 1780s?

no, but you missed the point.

(October 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm)chi pan Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Was it common to write dates out in that format in the 1780s?

no, but you missed the point.

Anno Domini

wikipedia Wrote:Anno Domini (AD or A.D.) and Before Christ (BC or B.C.) are designations used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

wikipedia Wrote:On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was introduced as the era of choice of the Carolingian Renaissance by Alcuin. Its endorsement by Emperor Charlemagne and his successors popularizing the usage of the epoch and spreading it throughout the Carolingian Empire ultimately lies at the core of the system's prevalence. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, popes continued to date documents according to regnal years for some time, but usage of AD gradually became more common in Roman Catholic countries from the 11th to the 14th centuries. In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to switch to the system begun by Dionysius. Eastern Orthodox countries only began to adopt AD instead of the Byzantine calendar in 1700 when Russia did so, with others adopting it in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Just as I thought: almost everybody was already using it.

(October 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm)chi pan Wrote:

(October 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Was it common to write dates out in that format in the 1780s?

no, but you missed the point.

Not really.

Just because I say 'god dammit' does not imply I believe in God. It's a common saying.

yes they held church services that is true, but that is not the church as we think of it today, it included all denominations, including catholics, no doubt muslims and jews and everyother faith would've have been allowed to pray there. That is not a church that's using 1 of 17 or so, existing buildings as a religous town hall, jefferson even said he would never have attended this church if it wasn't non-discriminatory

are you implying they left out the 1 million chances to add something religous of anykind, to this constitution, because they were stupid or because they were liars?

Meh. Go ahead. Make it a Christian nation. And that will make me an oppressed minority.


And fully morally justified in bombing your churches and killing your leaders.


I'll start with you. What did you say your name was again? Chuck uppity.

(October 27, 2012 at 11:43 pm)chi pan Wrote:

Rev. Rye Wrote:More of a matter of linguistics than anything else. This was in the time when just saying 1787 wasn't self explanatory.

if that were the case, they could refer to is as AD, as that did exist at that time, or at very least in the year of christ's birth. saying in the year of our lord implies devotion. otherwise "our lord" would not be there.

Since AD is the initialism for "Anno Domini" and means "In the year of our lord", somehow I think that your position on this would be exactly the same if they had used it. Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong.